{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":8,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":8,"direct_label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline (scores rank; they never assert a category)","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12","author_layer_release":"2026-06-26"},"query_hash":"c6b302a918d6","filters":{"venue":"ICL Journal"}},"results":[{"id":"W2249289710","doi":"10.1515/icl-2014-0104","title":"The New Zealand Food Bill and Global Administrative Law: A Recipe for Democratic Engagement?","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"World Trade Organization Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Democracy; Accountability; Political science; Criticism; Corporate governance; Law; Public administration; Administrative law; Global governance; International law; Commission; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics; Economics; Management","authors":[{"name":"Bryce Adamson","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03798736611554968,"gpt":0.3298010267148228,"spread":0.2918136605992731,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01482024,0.0004525703,0.0005443891,0.00148914,0.009220802,0.01951963,0.001665748,0.009547497,0.01367746],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01667278,0.0003378891,0.0007157844,0.00173838,0.07218278,0.01554324,0.009706675,0.009832739,0.0009989352],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02076655,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01773108,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06604303,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08861624,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9878643,0.006927358,0.000273772,0.0008631432,0.002403557,0.00166779],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.989543,0.006090544,0.0009797931,0.001299506,0.001242071,0.0008451808],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005407703,0.00001399063,0.0002849466,0.00002136921,0.000001636194,0.0001226876,0.007338688,0.00009578612,0.00006812564,0.9839797,0.00475289,0.003314791],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003396342,0.00003195227,0.002102289,0.0004145973,0.000009866157,0.0001598197,0.02733369,0.0007855148,0.00024532,0.5583167,0.4105256,0.00004072145],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03496999,0.002278767,0.01013919,0.2526998,0.0004979752,0.0001026941,0.00002780347,0.00007709073,0.6992067],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9211199,0.001323161,0.00550328,0.01734496,0.0003248113,0.0002167471,0.00002832159,0.0000912076,0.05404766],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06604303,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1506726,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4249658205","doi":"10.1515/icl-2019-0052","title":"Judicial Review (Departmentalism) vs Supremacy: The Connection to a 17th Century Debate and a Dilemma for Today","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Supreme court; Judicial review; Law; Separation of powers; Legislature; State (computer science); Unitary state; Sovereignty; Political science; Judicial activism; Power (physics); Interpretation (philosophy); Dilemma; Enumerated powers; Judicial interpretation; Philosophy; Politics; Epistemology; Mathematics","authors":[{"name":"Boleslaw Z. Kabala","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0444017283513609,"gpt":0.3234033583116535,"spread":0.2790016299602925,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01484945,0.0002397426,0.0005325414,0.002919727,0.01026885,0.01630044,0.001579062,0.01170736,0.004097331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01167261,0.0003777195,0.0004211907,0.001986105,0.05032496,0.01121155,0.002222574,0.01003505,0.0005503753],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02986455,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01388698,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05322251,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05307269,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9928421,0.003278129,0.0002337717,0.0007120551,0.001831475,0.001102611],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886241,0.007573901,0.0006771518,0.0004219729,0.001838931,0.0008638838],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005802015,0.000008018754,0.00008758371,0.00001310052,0.000001917788,0.00004640857,0.003113324,0.0000319098,0.0000406305,0.9848731,0.008586218,0.003192146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002483446,0.00001514206,0.0007526853,0.0003868739,0.000006400543,0.0001253463,0.004601707,0.0002228361,0.0001837091,0.4677389,0.5259035,0.00003805428],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02570348,0.07152136,0.002321729,0.6710463,0.002364259,0.00001499045,0.00006896095,0.00003321321,0.2269256],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8171623,0.0323427,0.002389838,0.09261958,0.01009536,0.00006200093,0.00005363856,0.0001009732,0.04517347],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05322251,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2166835,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3185515804","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0008","title":"The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Policy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Constitutional court; Political science; Jurisprudence; Legislation; Constitutional law; Constitutional review; Constitutional right; German; Constitution; History","authors":[{"name":"Kerstin Braun","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03208285660061638,"gpt":0.3671231256590786,"spread":0.3350402690584622,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006243096,0.0002015139,0.0004183067,0.003656602,0.01394827,0.009881352,0.002007918,0.002572295,0.003511742],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0168703,0.0003105782,0.0004176037,0.003108017,0.01739048,0.001765612,0.004026708,0.004539211,0.0001193609],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1478123,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.139027,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9814431,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9911383,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9917431,0.001471921,0.0002216727,0.0005634651,0.002489928,0.003509783],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9898509,0.003762213,0.0006038272,0.0002374771,0.003122755,0.002422854],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006543615,0.00006722728,0.01385139,0.0001020552,0.0000395484,0.0006787303,0.01764368,0.001114527,0.0003895963,0.9366935,0.009044328,0.02030999],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001397996,0.0001669006,0.3017059,0.003080907,0.0003171134,0.0008208614,0.1592333,0.005757037,0.002848429,0.1050461,0.4202961,0.0005875787],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6440492,0.01458559,0.001998667,0.06014863,0.0003957884,0.0001725143,0.0006573481,0.00004345934,0.2779488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9909478,0.001195991,0.0003771477,0.002968534,0.0000190601,0.00001499006,0.00004994063,0.000008714623,0.004417913],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1478123,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.988417,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3185707320","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0003","title":"Public Employees Restrictions on Political Activity in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Impartiality; Government (linguistics); Human rights; Public service; Public administration; Neutrality; Democracy; Balance (ability); Political science; Law; Dignity","authors":[{"name":"Margaret O’Brien","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1421828027916091,"gpt":0.3310146661112187,"spread":0.1888318633196096,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002968569,0.0001459309,0.0002907468,0.001899102,0.01369466,0.00588555,0.001152953,0.001222324,0.004505423],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01034349,0.0003139641,0.0002252576,0.002897716,0.007459447,0.001039464,0.003190832,0.002416699,0.0001873987],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0771018,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1028201,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9907784,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9955066,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9927832,0.0006366749,0.0002061531,0.0003534663,0.00259946,0.003421112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9849132,0.00476445,0.001586539,0.000535396,0.004699651,0.003500771],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0004083881,0.0002466543,0.218062,0.0003714508,0.00007734168,0.003252844,0.2326161,0.001313015,0.003499427,0.3738474,0.04623273,0.1200727],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004405616,0.00007670287,0.514951,0.0005940967,0.00006564581,0.0003407295,0.1704645,0.001033443,0.001705644,0.003968992,0.3065732,0.0001820173],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8765963,0.001067663,0.0002463037,0.005927999,0.00006296261,0.0000492909,0.0002074856,0.00002388891,0.1158181],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9873893,0.0004208242,0.0001090933,0.0009735869,0.00001181299,0.00001808574,0.00005242539,0.000008333714,0.01101661],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.0771018,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5594153,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3035318609","doi":"10.1515/journal-2019-0052","title":"Judicial Review (Departmentalism) vs Supremacy: The Connection to a 17th Century Debate and a Dilemma for Today","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Supreme court; Judicial review; Law; Legislature; State (computer science); Separation of powers; Sovereignty; Unitary state; Political science; Dilemma; Power (physics); Judicial activism; Interpretation (philosophy); Supremacy Clause; Enumerated powers; Judicial interpretation; Law and economics; Federalism; Sociology; Philosophy; Politics; Epistemology; Mathematics","authors":[{"name":"Boleslaw Z. Kabala","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0444017283513609,"gpt":0.3234033583116535,"spread":0.2790016299602925,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01484945,0.0002397426,0.0005325414,0.002919727,0.01026885,0.01630044,0.001579062,0.01170736,0.004097331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01167261,0.0003777195,0.0004211907,0.001986105,0.05032496,0.01121155,0.002222574,0.01003505,0.0005503753],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02986455,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01388698,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05322251,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05307269,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9928421,0.003278129,0.0002337717,0.0007120551,0.001831475,0.001102611],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886241,0.007573901,0.0006771518,0.0004219729,0.001838931,0.0008638838],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005802015,0.000008018754,0.00008758371,0.00001310052,0.000001917788,0.00004640857,0.003113324,0.0000319098,0.0000406305,0.9848731,0.008586218,0.003192146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002483446,0.00001514206,0.0007526853,0.0003868739,0.000006400543,0.0001253463,0.004601707,0.0002228361,0.0001837091,0.4677389,0.5259035,0.00003805428],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02570348,0.07152136,0.002321729,0.6710463,0.002364259,0.00001499045,0.00006896095,0.00003321321,0.2269256],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8171623,0.0323427,0.002389838,0.09261958,0.01009536,0.00006200093,0.00005363856,0.0001009732,0.04517347],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05322251,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2166835,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2556221961","doi":"10.1515/icl-2015-0104","title":"The Place of the Niqab in the Courtroom","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Multiculturalism; Law; Witness; Accommodation; Charter; Citizenship; Political science; Reasonable accommodation; Sociology; Freedom of religion; Psychology; Human rights","authors":[{"name":"Vrinda Narain","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04297987057629569,"gpt":0.332259574693555,"spread":0.2892797041172593,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005817242,0.0001713383,0.0004249012,0.001829069,0.03481556,0.01784523,0.002072072,0.004725973,0.01284062],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01406894,0.0004858375,0.0003431729,0.001574012,0.03303631,0.004696092,0.008019088,0.007681422,0.000844335],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02890259,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02981949,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4820779,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6407067,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9881083,0.004217508,0.000269794,0.001159887,0.002829892,0.00341462],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9929277,0.003176252,0.0004561227,0.000409818,0.001461648,0.001568387],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003506549,0.00002875054,0.003463891,0.00003394427,0.000009322068,0.001608363,0.06012902,0.0002444269,0.0007317181,0.9136558,0.009343857,0.01071589],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004023462,0.00008138584,0.02068079,0.001134083,0.00005075274,0.0009188246,0.2739647,0.001592651,0.002000103,0.1791492,0.5201675,0.0002197908],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2741733,0.001962371,0.008246415,0.04235362,0.0006520239,0.00007432338,0.0001095597,0.0000599507,0.6723683],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9869033,0.0001502077,0.0003725078,0.001455899,0.00003764068,0.000008398322,0.00001003898,0.00001350096,0.01104848],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4820779,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9585437,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3115008139","doi":"10.1515/icl-2020-0008","title":"<i>Ius puniendi</i> and Constitution: A Comparative (Canadian-German) Perspective","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Policy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; German; Obligation; Law; Human rights; Criminalization; Political science; Perspective (graphical); State (computer science); Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Кай Амбос","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1074933690151718,"gpt":0.4086710427120665,"spread":0.3011776736968947,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003317611,0.0003861223,0.0004359577,0.004647824,0.01438663,0.00998398,0.001505381,0.003094354,0.00775112],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004669183,0.0002366874,0.00037357,0.00638361,0.02459573,0.003014542,0.002233615,0.003103228,0.0002163837],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1002769,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04582106,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.939984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.960894,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9947003,0.001449463,0.00009212746,0.0004134541,0.001362089,0.001982607],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982985,0.000689059,0.0001236549,0.00008915347,0.0006249351,0.0001748069],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004997234,0.000002820894,0.0001573419,0.00002511003,0.000002872825,0.0000448293,0.001932486,0.0001027155,0.00003486541,0.9930558,0.002624954,0.002011236],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003005452,0.00003594528,0.01388927,0.001208233,0.00009772329,0.0003000926,0.02603802,0.0009907793,0.0005971937,0.2609228,0.6957724,0.0001175378],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04028916,0.0217908,0.002230471,0.03319743,0.000438745,0.00003536013,0.0003598827,0.00003230822,0.9016259],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9709949,0.006081211,0.001153568,0.002447772,0.0001025103,0.00002089272,0.00008535395,0.00001569689,0.01909793],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1002769,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7275635,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2206016767","doi":"10.1515/icl-2010-0103","title":"Learning From Others: The Scalia-Breyer Debate and the Benefits of Foreign Sources of Law to U.S. Constitutional Interpretation of Counter-Terrorism Initiatives","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Torture, Ethics, and Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Terrorism; Torture; Constitutional interpretation; Political science; Constitutional law; Strengths and weaknesses; Value (mathematics); Sociology; Human rights; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"Cornel Marian","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02660857607916999,"gpt":0.3010301254287254,"spread":0.2744215493495554,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01410329,0.0003017207,0.0005195125,0.001825378,0.01480662,0.01628445,0.001227793,0.008578016,0.003280645],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01463621,0.0002122337,0.0004407829,0.001436947,0.04174208,0.007070002,0.00438273,0.01136584,0.0002567211],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01521439,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009306649,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0604427,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09585121,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9921749,0.005080889,0.0001257671,0.0005790738,0.001097456,0.0009418817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9830778,0.01352146,0.0006368864,0.0006927929,0.001492442,0.0005785488],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001024438,0.00001143941,0.0002661615,0.00001036213,0.000004518015,0.0001297323,0.01277565,0.00009843508,0.00006132548,0.9796189,0.003624353,0.003388833],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004810176,0.00004662111,0.001861917,0.000546237,0.00005102452,0.0002255141,0.0584182,0.00111124,0.0008138969,0.7624197,0.1743955,0.00006208555],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.09919316,0.004599868,0.005398831,0.2361204,0.0006839656,0.00002612102,0.00003376822,0.00004175648,0.6539022],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9828815,0.0005666912,0.0004187387,0.01108439,0.0002649269,0.000009409479,0.000005535326,0.00002057223,0.004748282],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0604427,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1201818,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}